Re: Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

[Kalev Lember]

On 9/21/22 18:02, Kamil Paral wrote:

Hi Kalev,
while it's not essential, I find it unfortunate that Night Light 
controls are now broken, I think many people use it:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-control-center/-/issues/2056 

It should be fixed by this commit (I haven't tested it), but it seems 
it's not present in mutter-43.0-1:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/2623 



Hi Kamil,

Sure, I went ahead and backported that to mutter-43.0-2.fc37:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c7746c91b6

Can you try if it makes it work?

--
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

[Kalev Lember]

Hi all,

Just a quick heads up that the GNOME 43.0 final release megaupdate is
now in F37 updates-testing:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0bd68bbb43

This is the GNOME version that's we'll be shipping F37 Final with, so
please make sure to test it and file issues for things that would need
fixing before F37 GA. I'd suggest starting upstream at gitlab.gnome.org
for most issues, and then letting me (and other people) know in
#fedora-workstation if anything needs backporting to Fedora (since there
won't be any more upstream releases before F37 Final). If anything looks
to be release blockery, then please also file issues downstream at
bugzilla.redhat.com as soon as possible and mark them as blockers using
the blockerbugs page,
https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/37/final/buglist

At the same time, please don't block the update with -1 karma unless
there's something really amiss: We need the megaupdate to go stable and
we can iterate from there.

It all passed my own smoke testing and things were calm upstream and
it's mostly just bug fixes at this point, compared to 43.rc.

Thanks everybody and let's make this a good release!

--
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Basic criterion proposal: g-i-s shouldn't take 2 minutes to launch

[Kalev Lember]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:44 PM Kamil Paral  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:00 AM Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2021-03-14 at 11:13 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > In the wake of the BZ 1924808[1] discussion in Thursday's Go/No-Go
>> > meeting[2], I am proposing an addition to the Basic Release
>> > Criteria[3]. This would go into Post-Install Requirements -> Expected
>> > installed system boot behavior -> First boot utilities (appended after
>> > the existing sentence):
>> >
>> > > If a utility for creating user accounts and other configuration is
>> configured to launch, it must be visible within 10 seconds of the first
>> boot reaching the launch point.
>>
>
> I'm not exactly clear on what "the launch point" is, i.e. when I should
> start counting.
>

Could we just say something along the lines that "Applications and the
shell must start reasonably fast and not e.g. run into a 60 second timeout
when starting." and leave it up for interpretation?

-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

GNOME test day today

[Kalev Lember]

Hi all,

GNOME 40 test days are starting today, and running all the way through
Friday. If you can, come and join :)

The GNOME 40.rc mega-update just landed in F34 updates-testing,
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-303f6623fa so if you
are already on F34, just make sure to update to latest packages from
updates-testing (the repo is enabled by default for pre-releases).

Alternatively, I've put together a special test day image, which is
pretty much F34 Beta 1.2 + all the GNOME 40.rc updates:
http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-34-20210316.n.103.iso

Wiki page: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2021-03-17_Fedora_34_GNOME_40


IRC: #fedora-test-day on freenode

See you all there!

--
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: proposal: Default application functionality criterion reduction

[Kalev Lember]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:44 PM Kamil Paral  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 3:20 PM Kamil Paral  wrote:
>
>> This proposal intends to reduce the scope of the “*Default application
>> functionality*” release criterion [0]:
>>
>> All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
>>> mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of
>>> that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality
>>> test.
>>>
>>
>> *= Background =*
>>
>> The area which QA is responsible for has been growing and growing in
>> recent years. We used to have just a single Fedora release with two
>> blocking desktops (GNOME and KDE). Then Editions got introduced and we
>> started testing Workstation, Server, Cloud and the KDE Spin. Additional
>> architectures were introduced (fortunately i386 got obsolete) and we
>> started testing and blocking on specific images on armhfp and aarch64.
>> Currently there are 13 release blocking deliverables mentioned on the
>> ReleaseBlocking page [1]. That list is not complete, though. Fedora CoreOS
>> became an official edition lately, and even though its release cycle is not
>> tied to traditional Fedora release cycle (and that’s why it’s not mentioned
>> on that wiki page), as an official edition QA should care about it as well.
>> It is the same story with Fedora IoT, another recent release-blocking
>> addition [2]. Desktop testing is one of the most time-consuming jobs with
>> the most frequent bug occurrence. Right now, we’re supposed to be fully
>> testing and blocking on GNOME, KDE and XFCE (although XFCE might get
>> dropped in favor or aarch64 Workstation [3]). We cannot test all of this
>> and honestly claim that we verified basic functionality of all the included
>> apps on all these desktops. I believe we need to adjust the criterion and
>> align it closer with reality. In my eyes, it’s better to have a narrower
>> scope and perform it well than having a large scope and perform it poorly.
>>
>> *= Proposal =*
>>
>> Change the criterion to something along these lines:
>>
>> All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
>>> mechanism after a default installation of Fedora Workstation on x86_64
>>> architecture must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality
>>> test.
>>>
>>> For other release-blocking desktops (on any architecture), the
>>> requirements only apply to the following types of applications:
>>>
>>> * web browser   (e.g. firefox) [4]
>>>
>>> * file browser   (e.g. nautilus)
>>>
>>> * package manager   (e.g. gnome-software)
>>>
>>> * image viewer   (e.g. eog)
>>>
>>> * document viewer   (e.g. evince)
>>>
>>> * text editor   (e.g. gedit)
>>>
>>> * archive manager   (e.g. file-roller)
>>>
>>> * terminal emulator  (e.g. gnome-terminal) [4]
>>>
>>> * problem reporter   (e.g. abrt)
>>>
>>> If there are multiple applications of the same type (e.g. several web
>>> browsers), only one of them needs to satisfy the requirements.
>>>
>>
>> As you can see, the original criterion was kept for Fedora’s flagship
>> desktop edition, the one that is most prominent on https://getfedora.org
>> and probably the one that most newcomers download. We would still verify
>> everything on Fedora Workstation on x86_64. But any other desktop
>> (including Workstation on aarch64) would get just reduced criteria, because
>> we simply can’t ensure the same quality bar for the smaller desktop
>> editions/spins. There are some high-profile types of applications that I
>> considered including in the list above, but didn’t in the end:
>>
>> * word editor   (e.g. libreoffice-writer)
>>
>> * spreadsheet editor   (e.g. libreoffice-calc)
>>
>> * video player   (e.g. totem)
>>
>> * help viewer   (e.g. yelp)
>>
>> I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether they should be included or not.
>> Of course from an end-user point of view, it would be beneficial. But the
>> question is whether we as QA can promise their testing. And also whether we
>> want to block the release e.g. if Gnumeric is broken on armhfp XFCE or if
>> totem doesn’t work on aarch64. Yes, it’s unpleasant, but people using
>> alternative desktops and architectures are usually far from beginners. It’s
>> usually not difficult to install a different application. Also note that
>> the apps included in x86_64 Workstation will be thoroughly tested so they
>> should be very likely to work well even on other architectures (minus some
>> arch-specific issues).
>>
>> I’d like to target Fedora 32 with this proposal, which means we should
>> decide on this proposal fast. (I wanted to propose it much sooner, but I
>> was waiting on clarifications about new release-blocking images and also on
>> some fesco tickets [3], some of which is still not clarified; so I’m sorry
>> about a late proposal).
>>
>> Please comment, thanks.
>>
>>
>> [0]
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
>>
>> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/R

Re: GNOME Test day iso

[Kalev Lember]

Releng just started a new F32 compose that should get us the image. We'll
see in a bit how it goes.

Kalev


On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:59 PM Alessio  wrote:

> Hello.
> How it is going with the test image iso?
>
> In addition, on the wiki it is state that: "It's also fine to use a
> fully updated Fedora 31 Workstation Beta installation; no need to
> reinstall your system just for this test day."
> I think it should be modified.
>
> Thanks,
> A.
>
> ___
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf upgrade dnf massacred dnf

[Kalev Lember]

On 3/11/19 07:26, Felix Miata wrote:

Not enough freespace to download everything in advance and install/upgrade 
1100+ packages before
deleting everything. So after set-disabled rawhide and rawhide-modular I did my 
usual attempt to
bunch packages via .bash_history:

# dnf update dnf* rpm* system* libsol* hawke* glibc* fedor* bash-completion 
util-linux grub2-common
grubby dracu*

Apparently something about python3.7 is missing or broken, because now any dnf 
command I attempt to
proceed with (install|upgrade|update) produces "Unknown option". dnf makecache 
produces a blitz of
python errors:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 58, in 
   main.user_main(sys.argv[1:], exit_code=True)
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 193, in user_main
   errcode = main(args)
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 64, in main
   return _main(base, args, cli_class, option_parser_class)
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 99, in _main
   return cli_run(cli, base)
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 115, in cli_run
   cli.run()
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/cli.py", line 1108, in run
   return self.command.run()
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/commands/makecache.py", line 50, 
in run
   return self.base.update_cache(timer)
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 360, in update_cache
   (is_cache, expires_in) = r._metadata_expire_in()
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/repo.py", line 585, in 
_metadata_expire_in
   self._repo.loadCache(False)
File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/libdnf/repo.py", line 506, in loadCache
   return _repo.Repo_loadCache(self, throwExcept)
RuntimeError: Unknown option
# dnf install icewm
Unknown option
Error: Unknown option
#

Bugzilla's scripting has evolved to make it virtually useless for searches that 
don't return either
nothing or hundreds of hits.

Anyone know whether this is a known problem fixable with rpm, or is going to 
require complete
restore from backup or fresh installation?


Maybe check if you have all of the libdnf subpackages updated from
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1213513 ?

You can update them with 'rpm -Uvh *.rpm' if the downloaded rpms are in
the current directory.

Hope this helps,
Kalev





___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 30 0222 drop

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/25/19 20:39, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 11:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Sat, 2019-02-23 at 16:25 -0500, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote:
>>> Testing of F30 Workstation pre-Beta 0222 drop:
>>>
>>> ISO file could not checked for integrity because the CHECKSUM file was
>>> not in:
>>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/Fedora-30-20190222.n.0/compose/Workstation/x86_64/iso/
>>
>> Indeed. Mohan, any idea what's going on there? Thanks for catching
>> this.
> 
> Follow-up: the CHECKSUM file is present in the 0224.n.0 compose:
> 
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/Fedora-30-20190224.n.0/compose/Workstation/x86_64/iso/
> 
> so I guess this got fixed.

My guess would be that the compose didn't finish and the checksums are
generated at the end of the compose where it never got to.


>>> The Gnome Settings still crashes permanently when the Details tab is
>>> clicked. This seems serious, but I haven't nominated it as a blocker
>>> because of my lack of experience here. I'll leave it to others to
>>> decide. The Bug is #1680319.
>>
>> There's definitely something badly busted about it ATM, it seems. For
>> me it's still crashing on startup, but I haven't updated to the latest
>> compose yet. Other related bugs look to be:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674167
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667821 (possibly)
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667733
>>
>> desktop folks, can you please look into this? Thanks!
> 
> The launch crasher I'm seeing (with older Rawhide packages) is
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1682914 ...

nirik backported the upstream fix for this in
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-control-center/c/bdfa6da37edd73eb566dcd75a5deb4311b58dfd6?branch=master
so it should be fixed in gnome-control-center-3.31.90-2.fc30 (but the
newer F30 composes have all failed again so the install media and repos
aren't updated).

Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Out today. but comments for release readiness

[Kalev Lember]

On 10/25/2018 01:57 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

I have a family thing that needs my full attention. However:

1. I know I'm normally mashing on the "ship it!" button, but this time
around I think we should take caution and make sure we're confident about
all of the issues around libdnf and packagekit and basically anything
else which could prevent users from updating their systems.

2. It'd be kind of fun to ship on the anniversary of FC1 anyway, wouldn't
it?


With my gnome-software maintainer hat on, I agree. Let's polish this up
a bit more so that we can be confident that what we ship can properly
apply updates.

Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Heads up: today's rawhide and F29 updates-testing break gnome-shell login

[Kalev Lember]

Hi all,

It turns out mozjs60 60.2.0 (in F29 updates-testing and rawhide)
silently broke ABI and that broke gjs that gnome-shell uses. I've
rebuilt gjs; if you've already updated and can't log in, then
gjs-1.54.0-3.fc29 and gjs-1.54.0-3.fc30 should help.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bc166c0e29 has the
rebuilt gjs.

Hope this helps someone,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GNOME: log in not possible/crash after update/upgrade

[Kalev Lember]

On 05/03/2018 01:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 22:01 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:

today, I've updated my fedora (from 2018-04-17, with updates-testing).
After reboot, I wasn't able to log in (session just crashed right after
typing my password). The bug is already reported in BZ:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573683

The reason of crash and actual fix for it is pretty weird:
may 02 13:34:48 fanys-laptop gnome-session[1246]:
gnome-session-binary[1246]: WARNING: Application
'org.gnome.SettingsDaemon.XSettings.desktop' killed by signal 5
may 02 13:34:48 fanys-laptop gnome-session-binary[1246]: WARNING:
Application 'org.gnome.SettingsDaemon.XSettings.desktop' killed by signal 5
may 02 13:34:48 fanys-laptop gsd-xsettings[1960]: Settings schema
'org.cinnamon.desktop.a11y.applications' is not installed
may 02 13:34:48 fanys-laptop systemd-coredump[1941]: Process 1798
(gsd-xsettings) of user 42 dumped core.
(stack trace [1])


In order to fix this, I had to install cinnamon-desktop. After this, I was
able to log in, both into Wayland an Xorg session. I never had
cinnamon-desktop (or any other cinnamon package) installed on my PC. This
fix worked at least on one another computer. I am currently unable to
reproduce the issue.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573546

The update that caused this was
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-37c3eca456 . It was
in updates-testing for 9 hours or so; just about any upgrade of a
Workstation install to F28 with u-t that happened during that time was
likely affected. Once Matthew and Kevin diagnosed the problem, I
unpushed the update. It never reached stable.

Removing caribou, installing cinnamon-settings-daemon, or updating to
the fixed caribou from
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4c9e1c937c
should all resolve the issue.


Thee caribou update crashed my entire session during the dnf update.


Yes. It did that. We know. (It happened to Matt also).

Since it's now been unpushed and a fixed update pushed, are you asking
for something else to happen? If so, what?


In retrospect, if we find a Really Bad Update in updates-testing, the
person who unpushes it should also go and talk to releng to ask for an
emergency updates-testing push, to make sure it's actually removed from
mirrors. Clicking the unpush button in bodhi web ui just queues it to be
unpushed in the next updates-testing push and doesn't do any immediate
action.

I believe what happened here was that there was no updates-testing push
on the day the bad caribou update was unpushed, so it just kept on
lingering on the mirrors and breaking more and more people's systems.

Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Cairo 1.15.12-1.fc29 has a serious regression

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/15/2018 03:21 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Cairo 1.15.12-1.fc29 has broken bino and gmplayer at least and likely
> other things. 1.15.10-5.fc29 still works fine.
> Bug 1567611: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567611

I can't seem to reproduce this with the cairo 1.15.12 build that's in fc28.

-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gthumb: ... Unable to initialize the Clutter backend: no available drivers found

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/10/2018 01:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   i'm currently digging around on google and in bugzilla, seeing if
> someone else has reported and resolved this. thoughts?

This is likely fixed with this mesa update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-10fbc1fcf6 (on its
way to updates-testing)

-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The new gnome-software update with "third party repositories" support

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/19/2018 09:29 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Would it also be possible to use a different term than "Third
> party repositories" in the software repositories dialogue? What's
> happening now is that the repositories from the
> fedora-workstation-repositories package come under "Third party
> repositories" accompanied by the notice on how some of these may be
> proprietary, and other third party repositories that users may have
> enabled themselves, such as Adobe/Dropbox/RPMFusion are coming up
> in a separate section. This isn't quite intuitive---it almost gives one
> the feeling that the latter are not "third party".

Sure, suggestions for better wording are very welcome. This is the best
we've managed to come up with so far.

>> Yes, we are supposed to get a new docs page for this. I'll talk to
>> mattdm and see how far we are with this. I'll make sure we update the
>> link before pushing it out to stable.
> 
> I see this is up at the moment. It isn't updated, though (A ticket has
> been filed for Nvidia repositories etc already but I didn't want to update
> the page myself because I'm not completely sure of the complete process
> at the moment)
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_list
> 
> 
> I would really like whatever page we link to to have a clear, end-user
> targeted summary of free software and our commitment to it right at the
> top, and then possibly a rationale as to why we're making it easy for
> users to install some very commonly used proprietary software to improve
> usability.

Yes. I believe mattdm wanted to have a new docs.fedoraproject.org page
with end-user facing text that we can link to from gnome-software.


-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The new gnome-software update with "third party repositories" support

[Kalev Lember]

Hi,

Thanks for starting the discussion, Ankur! I was just about to send a
request for testing to the test list.

I just pushed gnome-software 3.28.0 to F27 updates-testing that
implements Fedora Workstation Third Party Repositories as approved in
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/121

This brings the gnome-software version in F27 in sync with what's in
F28. We spent a large part of the 3.28 cycle doing polish and papercut
fixes and it should make gnome-software in F27 much more stable and usable.

Would be awesome if some more people could give it a spin and test
gnome-software over next two weeks or so, in particular to make sure
that it doesn't regress any existing functionality (especially updating,
where it may take time to discover issues).

More replies in-line down below:

On 03/18/2018 01:28 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> - Clicking "enable" should tell the user what repositories were made
>   available for activation. Open up the "software sources" dialogue
>   straight-away, maybe?

Good point. I'll talk to aday (gnome-software designer) and discuss
this. We were polishing the new software repositories dialog a lot, but
the notification that appears on the overview page didn't get that much
love. I'll see what we can do; maybe just disable the notification for now.

> - The "find out more" link goes to the wikipedia page on properietary
>   software, which is frankly useless. The Fedora Forbidden items would
>   be a better page[2]. I would think the Forbidden Items page should
>   require a section explaining what Gnome-software is doing here. The
>   ideal scenario would be a special page that describes the individual
>   repositories that are included in the fedora-workstation-repositories
>   package. It should be a page that clearly speaks about free-software,
>   and Fedora's commitment to it.  I.e., it must educate users about the
>   matter, and say "if you must use software that is not free/open
>   source, you can do so here."

Yes, we are supposed to get a new docs page for this. I'll talk to
mattdm and see how far we are with this. I'll make sure we update the
link before pushing it out to stable.

> - And of course, can RPMFusion repositories be included here too if
>   we're happy to include Google's software?

Please open a ticket on https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation -- I don't
know the exact process how to add new repos, but I believe opening a
ticket there would be a start.

> I didn't want to comment on the update. Where would the right place to
> discuss this be?

desk...@lists.fedoraproject.org please.

Thanks,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Help test GNOME 3.28.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/16/2018 11:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 13:51 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> Fair enough, that's probably a prudent thing to do. I've split it out
>> from the rest of the 3.28.0 update now:
>>
>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.101-1.fc28
> 
> Thanks. I mean, I'd suggest not sending it to F28 at all (i.e.
> unpushing that update; keeping the update around will probably mean it
> gets karma and then gets auto-pushed when the Beta freeze is lifted)
> till madigens has had time to clean things up; it clearly looks worse
> than 0.0.25 for now, so why not just keep that one in F28 until the new
> series is at least roughly on a level with it?  It's not like pulling
> it in is really *dangerous*, it's just slightly inconvenient to openQA,
> so if it turns out that it *does* get improved in time for Final, we
> can always just pull it in then.
> 
> We can keep the new series in Rawhide, of course, seems reasonable to
> assume madigens will have got it looking nicer by the time we get to
> F29.

Good point. I removed the "auto-request stable" flag on the Cantarell
update now to make sure it doesn't accidentally go to stable and I'll
bring it up at next Workstation WG's meeting to make a decision for F28.

-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Help test GNOME 3.28.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/17/2018 03:23 PM, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote:
> Kalev,
> 
> I loaded the ISO you provided onto a bare metal system (Lenovo
> ThinkCenter M58P with E8400 processor) via DVD. I use US English. I
> tried most of the settings in the Settings Panel (some don't apply to
> this system like no bluetooth) and I made several changes using the
> Gnome-Tweak-Tool. I loaded my three favorite shell-extensions (Freon,
> Activities Configurator, and Topicons Plus). I also started, but did not
> use Librioffice Writer and Calc. Everything worked fine. The only
> anomaly I encountered was on the Lock Screen. The time was displayed
> fine, but the day and date line below the time kept shifting between its
> normal position and to be aligned with the left end of the time. The
> timing of the shifts seemed random and were less than a minute apart.

Thanks for testing it! Could you file the time shifting issue at
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell please?

Thanks,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Help test GNOME 3.28.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/16/2018 01:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 11:52 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
>>
>> I'd appreciate a lot if people could give it a quick spin and see if
>> they can find anything that looks like a regression compared to the
>> stable F28 images, and then we can further discuss this at the blocker
>> review meeting on Monday.
> 
> The new version of Cantarell is, by its own authors admission, a
> regression for all practical purposes:
> 
>  adamw: thanks for the feedback :) cantarell's spacing
> does indeed look a bit funky... in gtk3 and firefox. that's due to a
> missing technical detail called "subpixel positioning". Spacing looks
> more consistent in Qt apps and Chrome. there also isn't any kerning
> yet, so things like AVA, To, etc. look gap-y
> 
> So, it looks fine...except in GTK+ 3 (i.e. basically all of
> Workstation) and Firefox (Workstation's default browser).
> 
> That seems like a problem. :P (Never mind that it just chucks out
> Cyrillic coverage, which the previous version had). Can we consider
> sticking with the old one at least until it's clear if this will be
> cleaned up in time for Final?

Fair enough, that's probably a prudent thing to do. I've split it out
from the rest of the 3.28.0 update now:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.101-1.fc28

-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Help test GNOME 3.28.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/16/2018 12:35 PM, Felipe Borges wrote:
> I have tried to boot up the image above but it fails for me. After
> grub it spams intermittently the terminal with
> 
> [dracut-initqueue[582]: Warning: dractur-initqueue timeout - starting
> timeout scripts
> 
> And after some time it falls back into emergency mode.
> 
> The media test also fails. I have downloaded it three times to make sure.
> 
> Has somebody else run into the same problem?

Woops. I ran out of disk quota when copying the iso file and didn't
notice it. Should be fixed now, can you try downloading again?

-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Help test GNOME 3.28.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/16/2018 12:13 PM, Charles-Antoine Couret wrote:
> I have an issue with Gnome-Shell which is crashing every time before
> displaying applications. I have to downgrade to a beta release to be
> able to use it.
> 
> I reported a bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551749
> 
> Apart from mutter/gnome-shell/mesa issue, other components are working
> well with the latest release.

Thanks for the feedback.

I was mostly looking for regression testing compared to what we have in
F28 stable right now. In the ticket you say that the F28 stable packages
(mutter 3.27.92/gnome-shell 3.27.92) are already crashing for you, which
means the 3.28.0 update doesn't regress this further.

I know this might sound arrogant when I say it like that, but it's an
important distinction here because even though 3.28.0 doesn't fix your
issue, it fixes a number of other problems and is probably still worth
including in Beta.

Your issue is probably still important to analyze and fix, but not in
the "should we include 3.28.0 over 3.27.92 in F28 Beta" context.

Hope this clears it up,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Help test GNOME 3.28.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

Hi test list,

I'm hoping we could have GNOME 3.28.0 in F28 Beta as a Freeze Exception.
I've filed a bug tracking this, and I hope we can discuss this further
during the blocker review meeting on Monday.

Bodhi update for 3.28.0:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5ebe0eb1f2

FE bug for including 3.28.0:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1554966

We have 3.28 release candidate (3.27.92) in F28 stable right now and
3.28.0 is the final release; would be really nice to ship Beta with the
final release so that we can get more testing for the code we'll be
shipping in F28 final. This helps both GNOME upstream developers and
Fedora by helping us catch bugs earlier and fix them.

I'll be on lookout this week and next week for any possible regressions
that the 3.28.0 update might bring, compared to what we currently have
in stable and happy to quickly fix up anything that comes up. (Fixing
for Beta might be just reverting certain patches/going back to 3.27.92
versions of individual packages, but I'm confident we can quickly fix up
anything that could be a Beta blocker so that we can include all or most
of the 3.28.0 update in Beta).

I put together a Workstation ISO image for easy testing. It should be
exactly the same as today's
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-28-20180315.n.0 compose, except that any
updates from the 3.28.0 update are included.

Here's the ISO image:
https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-28-20180315.n.0-GNOME-3.28.0.iso

I'd appreciate a lot if people could give it a quick spin and see if
they can find anything that looks like a regression compared to the
stable F28 images, and then we can further discuss this at the blocker
review meeting on Monday.

Thanks so much and have a nice Friday and weekend everyone!

Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Testcase upgrade gnome-software current workstation

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/03/2018 11:42 AM, Alessio Ciregia wrote:
> 2018-03-03 11:08 GMT+01:00 Kalev Lember :
>> There's probably something that has broken dependencies. Can you try
>> doing 'dnf distro-sync --releasever=28 --best' (and press 'no' when it
>> asks if you want to continue) and post the output somewhere? It should
>> say somewhere why it wants to remove all of those packages.
> 
> Here you can find the output of such command:
> <https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/O6KpMxXLu2OTVXxqhFbZEw>

Looks like something going wrong with fwupdate-libs shim dependency. "shim-13-2"
build, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1051783
seems to be only tagged into f29, I wonder if it needs to be in f28 as
well? CC'ing pjones.

 Problem 1: package fwupdate-libs-10-6.fc28.x86_64 requires shim, but none of 
the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
fwupdate-libs-10-1.fc27.x86_64
  - shim-x64-13-0.7.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 2: package fwupdate-libs-10-6.fc28.x86_64 requires shim, but none of 
the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both shim-x64-13-0.3.x86_64 and shim-x64-13-0.7.x86_64
  - problem with installed package fwupdate-libs-10-1.fc27.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package shim-x64-13-0.7.x86_64
  - fwupdate-libs-10-1.fc27.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository


-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Testcase upgrade gnome-software current workstation

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/03/2018 09:18 AM, Alessio Ciregia wrote:
> Hello.
> I was following the test case "upgrade gnome-software current
> workstation" [1] upgrading F27 to F28 using GNOME Software.
> I got the warn as in the screenshot [2] stating that fwupdate related
> software is incompatible with Fedora 28. Is this ok?
> 
> Thanks,
> A.
> 
> [1] 
> 
> [2] 
> 

There's probably something that has broken dependencies. Can you try
doing 'dnf distro-sync --releasever=28 --best' (and press 'no' when it
asks if you want to continue) and post the output somewhere? It should
say somewhere why it wants to remove all of those packages.

Also, somewhat related, gnome-software-3.26.7-1.fc27 and
gnome-software-3.24.3-4.fc26 builds that are in updates-testing add F28
beta artwork to the distro upgrade banners if you want to try that out.

-- 
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 27 Final blocker status mail #1

[Kalev Lember]

On 10/20/2017 02:52 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494061
> ACTION: desktop team to investigate and fix

Should be now fixed with
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c7e6d7da2b
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Rawhide cannot boot up after upgrade to 20170117 snapshot

[Kalev Lember]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Bowen Wang 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> After I upgraded to the 20170117 snapshot, I cannot boot up fedora
> rawhide. I can see the loading screen with the fedora logo, but after
> that, the screen just switch to the text mode, the last line in the text
> mode is:
> Started Virtualization  daemon. Dispatcher Service...nge
> transactions
> Then screen just went black, no other information. I can't see the login
> screen of the GNOME.
> Does anybody have the same issue?
>

I debugged this a bit in the morning and it was gnome-shell crashing on
startup in the mozjs code. It should be fixed with latest mozjs31 build,
mozjs31-31.5.0-1.fc26 which should be in tormorrow's rawhide. Or just grab
the rpms directly from
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=834907

-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-software no notifications, but pending updates

[Kalev Lember]

On 12/23/2016 11:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> In gnome-shell if I go to restart (upper right corner, power button
> icon) I have an 'install pending software updates' now for two days,
> but there's no other notification that there are pending software
> updates.
> 
> Is this change in behavior expected? Seems like a bug. Maybe I'll
> leave it alone for a couple more days and see if it continues to
> accumulate updates without any notification.

gnome-software notifies only once per week as per design (or more often
when there are pending security updates available), but at the same time
it does prepare the offline update as soon as it finds new updates so
it's possible to install the updates manually more often if you want to,
either through the gnome-shell shutdown dialog or from gnome-software
itself.

I don't think there's been a behaviour change here, unless there's a bug
somewhere of course.

-- 
Hope this clears it up,
Kalev
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Beta status

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/27/2016 08:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 09:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop, here's what's going on
with F24 Beta:

we have two outstanding accepted blockers that need fixing before we
can spin a 'release candidate':

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321330
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865

a kernel is building that is expected to fix the first, and hughsie is
testing a fix for the second as we speak. Once we have both fixes in
bodhi I'll request a release candidate compose and we'll hopefully have
time to blow through testing ahead of go/no-go.


So unfortunately there was a bit of a communication breakdown between
hughsie and myself, I think - he built the fix for the second bug in
COPR and requested testing, but I was waiting for a Koji/Bodhi build
for some reason. For anyone who wants to test it, the COPR is here:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rhughes/f23-gnome320/build/181352/

(only built for F23 for some reason) - please do try it out and give
feedback. But we can't do an F24 RC with this issue outstanding,
really. We could try an extremely dodgy 'it's not really a blocker'
fudge or some kind of heroic attempt for a drive-by packager to apply
the changes to the official packages, but I'm not sure either of those
is a great idea unless there's some kind of insanely pressing reason to
get the Beta out on schedule. I'd rather take the time to consider it
properly.


Sorry, I had the patches ready last week, but there was a bit of
communication breakdown between me and hughsie and they never got
anywhere. If someone could double check that the libhif build in COPR
works, I am happy to do an official F24 build + a Bodhi update tonight.

Hope this helps,
Kalev
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Rawhide 20151216 compose check report

[Kalev Lember]

On 12/16/2015 11:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

only it was too late - by the time he posted that, the new gsettings-
desktop-schemas was already in the repos. So all the Workstation
upgrade tests fail; the upgrade process itself works fine, but GDM does
not start properly in the upgraded system. i.e., we could do with a
fixed gnome-shell build ASAP :)


Should be fixed in today's rawhide. fmuellner did the missing
gnome-shell 3.19.3 release last night and built it for Fedora as well.

--
Kalev
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Non-image blocker process change proposal

[Kalev Lember]

On 11/20/2015 03:56 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/20/2015 07:16 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:

The biggest issue is this, I think. We probably need to encode
"Special Blockers" into the Go/No-Go process. I don't think that
assurance that it will be fixed on time is necessarily good
enough. Particularly given the time that it takes stable updates
to make it to the mirrors, I'd say that we probably want to say
that any such special blockers have to be queued for stable
before the Go/No-Go decision is made. (This may in some cases
mean *during* the Go/No-Go meeting, of course.)


Well, here's our latest mess-up:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-e00b75e39f
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade-0.7.0-1.fc22 had enough karma for stable
on

Oct 29, which was Go/No-Go day. Therefore it was considered "resolved".

"Had enough karma" != queued for stable. When I say "queued for
stable", I mean that it needs to be "submitted for stable" and
awaiting a push (if not already pushed). According to the history on
that bug, it was not actually submitted for stable until November 2nd.
That would have failed my criterion above, since that was after Go/No-Go.


Yup, I think "queued for stable" is the right thing to require here.
Releng always does a 0 day push; we just need to ensure during the
blocker review process that things that need to be included in that push
are actually queued for stable.

That should be enough for all practical purposes. I mean, releng's 0 day
push may fail of course or take longer than expected, but I don't think
that needs to be tracked with the blocker review process. Releng is
going to be painfully aware if their pushes are failing anyway and
working as fast as they can to fix them.

--
Kalev
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Fedora 23 Branched 20150905 compose check report

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/05/2015 10:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-09-05 at 11:54 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote:
>> Missing expected images:
>>
>> Kde Live i386
>> Workstation Live i386
>> Cloud base Disk i386
>> Minimal Disk armhfp
>> Cloud base Disk x86_64
>> Kde Live x86_64
>> Kde Disk armhfp
>> Workstation Live x86_64
> 
> It looks like many composes are failing because of the buildroot
> override for rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.1.fc23, at least I think that's what's
> happening (they're failing with dependency errors in librpm).
> 
> It looks like 4.13.0-0.rc1.2 adds a compat-librpm3 package, but the
> buildroot override is still for rc1.1, which doesn't have it.
> 
> The BRO is currently expiring on 09-08, so unless the update gets
> submitted and goes stable in the meantime, nightlies will be broken
> until then.
> 
> Kalev, Dennis, anything we can do to clean this up? Thanks.

I've expired the buildroot overrides now that the rebuilds are done,
just to make sure they don't break tomorrow's composes.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15193 is the rpm
update -- hopefully it will be in updates-testing by tomorrow.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: oversized icons in nautilus

[Kalev Lember]

On 05/24/2015 05:32 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/24/2015 04:44 PM, Ronal B Morse wrote:
>> On 05/24/2015 12:05 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
>>> [1] In xfce, try Settings->Xfce Theme Manager->Icons
>> Ralf, in the Nautilus window running on Gnome, click on the middle
>> button on the right side of the upper panel (nine dots). There is a
>> slider control below the layout selection buttons at the top. Move the
>> slider to the left. That fixes the issue for me.
> Thanks for the hint, but this doesn't help either.
> 
> The slider changes the size of the "file icons" but keeps the "directory
> icons" constant (constantly oversized).
> 
> Also, this slider doesn't allow changing the file icon size to the size
> of the directory icons. Even pulling the silder to "max", the file icons
> are smaller than these huge directory icons.

Can you file it at https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=nautilus
together with the screenshot, please?

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

How To Do Testing (was: Re: test Digest, Vol 134, Issue 49)

[Kalev Lember]

1) Install pre-release F22, for example
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/22_Beta_RC1/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Live-Workstation-x86_64-22_Beta-1.iso

2) Register an account on https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts

3) Run 'dnf update' daily

4) Run 'fedora-easy-karma' daily, and give -1 karma to updates that
regress anything and +1 karma to those that don't

Hope this helps,
Kalev

On 04/13/2015 12:40 PM, Ashutosh Bhakare wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> Please guide me how to do testing, i am willing to work on testing
> things.
> 
> Regards
> Ashutosh 
> 
> On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 08:57 +, test-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> wrote:
>> The following Fedora 22 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: big problems after this morning f22 gnome mega update

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/27/2015 01:14 PM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> Downgrading libinput to libinput-0.12.0-2.fc22.x86_64 solves my problem.
> Many thanks.

Great, thanks for testing. Can you file a bugzilla ticket against
libinput and leave karma at
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4500/libinput-0.13.0-1.fc22 
?

Thanks,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: big problems after this morning f22 gnome mega update

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/27/2015 06:05 AM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> after installing this morning F22 updates (essentially gnome updates to
> V3.16.0-1) I have big problems with the gnome3 desktop:
> 
> 1. The mouse speed is veryy slow; changing the mouse speed by the
> gnome-control-center has no effect. The mouse speed in any tty (gpm
> usage) seems to be normal.
> 
> 2. no input possible to the thunderbird write window
> 
> So for the moment I'm handycapped and using cinnamon as desktop session
> type.
> 
> Same experiences?

Hm, not seeing either of the problems here. Can you try if downgrading
libinput fixes the mouse speed issue?

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: gnome-settings-daemon conflicts with gnome-shell-3.13.91-1.fc22.x86_64

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/17/2014 11:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> And once again, F20 doesn't upgrade to Rawhide:
> 
> # yum update
> [...]
> --> Processing Conflict: gnome-settings-daemon-3.13.92-1.fc22.x86_64 
> conflicts gnome-shell < 3.13.92
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: gnome-settings-daemon conflicts with gnome-shell-3.13.91-1.fc22.x86_64

Sorry for the trouble. Should be fixed in tomorrow's rawhide.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: What's wrong with Fedora 21 GNOME?

[Kalev Lember]

On 08/26/2014 10:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 08/26/2014 09:57 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Where is the menu of Evince? Its Help system refers to it ("top right
>> corner"), but I can't find it.
> 
> I filed this earlier today at
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735446

Should be fixed in
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-10210

Testing much appreciated!

Thanks,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: after update, suddenly gnome-screenshot won't start

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/05/2014 05:57 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 21:04 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> Can you file this downstream in bugzilla.redhat.com too? We should be
>> able to propose this as an Alpha freeze exception and pull it in so
>> that
>> it gets included on the live media.
> 
> Apologies Kalev, I didn't see this mail earlier. Thanks for filing the
> downstream bug.

No worries. I see you've already discovered the update, but for anyone
else reading, gnome-screenshot not starting should be fixed in:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-10210

Thanks,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: after update, suddenly gnome-screenshot won't start

[Kalev Lember]

On 08/29/2014 02:36 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 19:19 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> The desktop file is correct; it launches gnome-screenshot
>> --interactive.
>> So the program itself is indeed broken.
> 
> This bug also exists in F21. I filed a bug a couple of days ago:
> 
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735375

I've attached patches in the ticket to fix this.

Can you file this downstream in bugzilla.redhat.com too? We should be
able to propose this as an Alpha freeze exception and pull it in so that
it gets included on the live media.

-- 
Thanks,
Kalev

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: What's wrong with Fedora 21 GNOME?

[Kalev Lember]

On 08/26/2014 09:57 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Where is the menu of Evince? Its Help system refers to it ("top right
> corner"), but I can't find it.

I filed this earlier today at
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735446

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Thursday's rawhide and mutter

[Kalev Lember]

On 05/01/2014 03:13 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> In today's rawhide there is a file conflict between mutter and
> mutter-wayland. There is already a new build of mutter which obsoletes
> mutter-wayland. So you can either grab the latest mutter or manaully
> remove mutter-wayland, if you want today's updates today.

It's probably best to wait for tomorrow's rawhide. Yesterday's late
night gnome-shell build didn't get much testing and there were other
issues that could lead to the graphical session not working. We didn't
have a recent enough gnome-desktop-schemas release and gnome-shell was
missing a libgsystem dep and other stuff.

Wait until tomorrow rawhide, please.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: No display after update

[Kalev Lember]

2013-06-12 15:07, Kalev Lember skrev:
> 2013-06-12 13:18, Lawrence Graves skrev:
>> I installed Fedora 19 TC2 and after update it failed to display .
> 
> Likely https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973542

... and now with a fix:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-3.8.3-2.fc19,cogl-1.14.0-3.fc19

Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: No display after update

[Kalev Lember]

2013-06-12 13:18, Lawrence Graves skrev:
> I installed Fedora 19 TC2 and after update it failed to display .

Likely https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973542

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Please help test packages!

[Kalev Lember]

2013-05-26 21:37, John Reiser skrev:
> What should I expect?  I get no error, but no much more:
> 
>   $ fedora-easy-karma
>   Getting list of installed packages...
>   Getting list of packages in updates-testing...
>   $ echo $?
>   0
>   $
> 

This probably means that you don't have the updates-testing repository
enabled. Can you check it with 'yum repolist enabled' ?

The /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo that the pre-release
fedora-release-19 rpm includes, enables updates-testing by default. I
suppose it can end up disabled after distro upgrades when the rpm config
file protection kicks in and it creates the new repo files as .rpmnew.

Once it's enabled, a simple 'yum update' should be enough to update
everything to the updates-testing version.

-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Please help test packages!

[Kalev Lember]

Hi,

We are now out of the Beta freeze and this means time to test! With the
freeze lifted, people are going to be rushing to get last minute fixes
in, during the short window before the Final freeze.

F19 already has a large number of unapproved updates queued in
updates-testing. Could folks that are on F19 please run
fedora-easy-karma occasionally and file karma as appropriate?

And please don't only file negative karma, positive karma is also very
much needed in case you don't notice any regressions.

It would be a huge help if some more people could help with the
feedback. This is how it works:

 a) Get a FAS account, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts
 b) Update to F19 / install from scratch
 c) Run fedora-easy-karma on the command line daily
 d) Profit!

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines

Thanks!

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Vmware Workstation 9

[Kalev Lember]

2013-05-18 02:22, Lawrence Graves skrev:
> Able to install Workstation 9 but can't get a visual. Any ideas what's
> going on. Welcome all imput.

Likely the the same issue that's reported here:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700495

Can you try if 'yum downgrade gtkmm24' fixes it for you? The update
lingered for a while in the F19 updates-testing repo, but never got
pushed to stable and is being unpushed now.

Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Karma requests -- oversize desktop live media

[Kalev Lember]

Hi,

I have collected here a few builds that should help cut down the live
media sizes. It would be great to have them in stable before the Beta
freeze tomorrow. Could someone help me test them, please?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-7885/file-roller-3.8.1-4.fc19

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-7900/frei0r-plugins-1.3-10.fc19

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-7880/libreport-2.1.4-5.fc19

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-7978/librsvg2-2.37.0-3.fc19

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-7890/selinux-policy-3.12.1-44.fc19,policycoreutils-2.1.14-40.fc19

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/brltty-4.5-5.fc19

-- 
Thanks,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Frequent evolution crashes anyone?

[Kalev Lember]

On 01/07/2013 10:50 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:32:05 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> downgrading from gtk3 3.6.3 to 3.6.2 seems to have fixed this for me.
>>
>> "yum downgrade gtk3*"
> 
> Above bug also crashes evince occasionally:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/892209

See
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2013-January/msg00013.html

There should hopefully be a gtk3 update later today that fixes this up.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Uh-oh something has gone wrong....

[Kalev Lember]

On 12/19/2012 08:31 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> After installing updates from rawhide 20121219 had to revert clutter,
> clutter-gtk and mutter to get desktop back.  Don't know what is causing
> this or who to bz.  If anyone knows, tell me and I will bz.

Hi Clyde,

I think I've fixed this up. There was a mutter update in the rawhide
repo, but the matching gnome-shell update was missing. I've now done the
new gnome-shell build and a bunch of others.

This should show up in today's rawhide compose in a few hours.

One thing to note is that you'll probably need to remove gnome-panel
manually before doing the upgrade. It currently has broken deps and
doesn't build.

-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Please help test packages! (was: Fedora 18 updates-testing report)

[Kalev Lember]

Hi,

F18 currently has a huge number of unapproved updates queued in
updates-testing. Could folks that are on F18 please run
fedora-easy-karma occasionally and file karma as appropriate?

And please don't only file negative karma, positive karma is also very
much needed in case you don't notice any regressions.

It would be a huge help if some more people could help with the
feedback. This is how it works:

 a) Get a FAS account, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts
 b) Update to F18 / install from scratch
 c) Run fedora-easy-karma on the command line daily
 d) Profit!

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines

Thanks!

-- 
Kalev


On 12/06/2012 12:17 AM, upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing:
>  Age  URL
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19777/bind-9.9.2-5.P1.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19664/bogofilter-1.2.3-1.fc18
>3  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19508/drupal6-ctools-1.10-1.fc18
>3  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19521/zabbix-2.0.3-7.fc18
>   57  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15716/libxslt-1.1.27-2.fc18
>8  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19056/squashfs-tools-4.2-5.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19804/kernel-3.6.9-4.fc18
>8  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19125/perl-CGI-3.59-235.fc18,perl-5.16.2-235.fc18
>7  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19158/kde-settings-4.9-16.fc18.1
>   15  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18579/gnome-system-log-3.6.1-2.fc18
>   26  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17907/cups-pk-helper-0.2.4-1.fc18
>   54  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15996/cobbler-2.4.0-beta2.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19301/cups-1.5.4-20.fc18
>5  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19439/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.1.4-1.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19584/openstack-keystone-2012.2.1-1.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19588/weechat-0.3.9.2-2.fc18
>   26  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17834/cumin-0.1.5522-4.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19652/xen-4.2.0-6.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19673/qt-4.8.4-1.fc18
> 
> 
> The following Fedora 18 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
>  Age URL
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19780/exo-0.10.0-1.fc18,Thunar-1.6.0-1.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19811/systemd-195-10.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19806/dnsmasq-2.64-1.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19813/NetworkManager-0.9.7.0-9.git20121004.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19799/python-meh-0.19-1.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19777/bind-9.9.2-5.P1.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19802/livecd-tools-18.13-1.fc18
>0  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19804/kernel-3.6.9-4.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19682/passwd-0.78.99-3.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19653/fltk-1.3.0-8.fc18,tigervnc-1.2.80-0.6.20121126svn5015.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19673/qt-4.8.4-1.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19659/iputils-20121125-2.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19640/alsa-lib-1.0.26-2.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19639/gdb-7.5.1-31.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19576/util-linux-2.22.1-2.4.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19596/mesa-9.0.1-1.fc18
>1  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19592/libgcrypt-1.5.0-8.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19583/openssh-6.1p1-3.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19578/sgpio-1.2.0.10-10.fc18
>2  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19570/gdb-7.5.1-30.fc18
>3  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19509/gnome-shell-3.6.2-4.fc18
>3  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19526/pango-1.32.3-1.fc18
>5  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19437/shared-mime-info-1.0-7.fc18
>5  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19417/hostname-3.11-4.fc18
>5  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-19433/dwz-

Re: today's yum dependency issues for rawhide

[Kalev Lember]

On 07/11/2012 06:12 PM, Kevin Martin wrote:
> --> Processing Dependency: libudev.so.0()(64bit) for package: 
> vlc-core-2.0.1-1.fc18.x86_64

I believe this is holding back most of your updates.

Is vlc-core a rpmfusion package? It should be rebuilt for libudev ABI
change. File a bug with rpmfusion bugzilla (you can use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831987 as a template).

-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: FC17 upto FC18/ Rawhide???

[Kalev Lember]

On 06/12/2012 08:24 PM, Rob Healey wrote:
> I sit and wait and wait and wait some more, all that I ever get is a
> mouse pointer with a waiting symbol.  I never get anywhere farther than
> the mouse cursor which does move all around the screen if I play with it

Try booting into the single user mode. Might be able to find some useful
information from /var/log and debug it further from there.

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/17/html/Installation_Guide/ap-rescuemode.html#s1-rescuemode-booting-single

Another easy thing to try is just select an older kernel from the GRUB
boot menu. I doubt it helps in this case, but worth a try.

If none of the above helps, try creating a more detailed report -- where
exactly does the booting stop? Do you see any error messages? Screenshot
(use a camera); information from log files, and so on.

For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a rawhide installation running
GNOME and it booted fine a few days ago, when I last tried. Granted,
this is with a F17 kernel and initramfs, because I don't want to use the
slow rawhide kernels that have debug options turned on.


-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: gtk3-3.5.2-1 ???

[Kalev Lember]

On 06/08/2012 12:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Well, what do you mean by 'use it', exactly? F17 has GTK+ 3.4. 3.5 is a
> new major version - it's not API/ABI compatible. If you were going to
> backport it to F17 you'd have to either install it alongside 3.4 - in
> which case you would not, in practice, be 'using it', it'd just be
> sitting there - or recompile all (or at least some) of the GTK+ apps you
> run against 3.5. That's a major undertaking and would leave you with a
> system that was rather diverged from F17.

Not true. GTK+ 3.5 is API/ABI compatible with earlier GTK+ 3.x releases.
This means that an app compiled with GTK+ 3.0 or 3.2 or 3.4 will
continue to work with GTK+ 3.5. Barring any bugs, of course.

Also, GTK+ 3.x releases are not parallel installable, so installing the
gtk3-3.5.2 package would replace the gtk3-3.4.3 package that's in F17.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

mass closing F15 bugs in bugzilla?

[Kalev Lember]

Hello,

What's the plan for handling the upcoming F15 end-of-life in Bugzilla?
In the past, as per the bugzilla housekeeping page [1], the bugs for EOL
releases have been mass closed and the rawhide bugs have gotten rebased
for the new current release. Are there any plans to do that for F15 as
well, or is this something that each individual package maintainers are
now supposed to do?

I'd like to note that the F14 bugs didn't get closed either; there's a
wiki page [2] for tracking this work, but apparently it's unfinished.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora16

-- 
Thanks,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Lots of schema related warnings on yum update

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/25/2012 12:50 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I get these schema warnings on updating my F17 system:
>> warning: Schema 'org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Logger' has path 
>> '/apps/telepathy-logger/'.  Paths starting with '/apps/', '/desktop/' or 
>> '/system/' are deprecated.
[...]
> How should these be handled? Do we file bugs? Do we ignore these?

There was a late change in glib-compile-schemas, introducing these
warnings. A lot of packages run glib-compile-schemas in rpm scripts [1]
at package install / uninstall time, so this also shows up during yum
updates.

The fix would be to redirect glib-compile-schemas output to /dev/null in
each of the packages that run glib-compile-schemas.
I've done a number of packages here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-6591

Also see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814053

If you find any other packages with noisy %post scriptlets, beyond what
I've already fixed in that update, file bugs against the packages.

I used the following one-liner to identify packages needing fixing. If
you apply the update above (might still see some warnings during the
update from old packages uninstallation) and then run this, you might
find some new ones that need fixing:

rpm -qa | while read pkg ; do if rpm -q --scripts $pkg | grep 
glib-compile-schemas | grep -v '/dev/null' > /dev/null ; then echo "$pkg 
doesn't redirect glib-compile-schemas output" ; fi ; done


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: /usr/bin/sync hangs up if called in

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/15/2012 01:50 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 04/15/2012 10:18 AM, Joachim Backes wrote:
>> Calling /usr/bin/sync manually will hang up. System continues to operate
>> and reboots normally.
>>
>> This happens with kernel-3.3.1-5.fc17, kernel-3.3.2-1.fc17 and
>> glibc-2.15-32.fc17.x86_64.
>>
>> Anybody sees this too?
> 
> I just ran into the same thing. Both "sync" and
> "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" commands hang for me on F17.

Did some more poking around and killing the "fusermount" process appears
to help.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: /usr/bin/sync hangs up if called in

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/15/2012 10:18 AM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> Calling /usr/bin/sync manually will hang up. System continues to operate
> and reboots normally.
> 
> This happens with kernel-3.3.1-5.fc17, kernel-3.3.2-1.fc17 and
> glibc-2.15-32.fc17.x86_64.
> 
> Anybody sees this too?

I just ran into the same thing. Both "sync" and
"echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" commands hang for me on F17.

Tried with a slightly older F16 kernel, but that didn't appear to fix it
(kernel-3.2.10-3.fc16.x86_64).

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Proposal: stop holding composes for preupgrade bugs at Alpha and Beta phases

[Kalev Lember]

On 04/10/2012 09:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 22:15 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> I think we want preupgrade to work for at least beta. I think just not
>> blocking the composes, but requiring it to work for beta is better than
>> waiting until final.
> 
> That's the intent of option 2). Though to be honest, we're not terribly
> good at following through on it. When we've had preupgrade /
> livecd-tools 'blockers' before, we've sometimes not managed to get the
> fix pushed stable by release date.

I think it's a great idea to not block media composes for preupgrade
issues. However, it is still a supported upgrade method and needs
Beta testing. I would definitely not move preupgrade to only blocking
final release; why else are we doing Beta releases if not to get testing?

What I would do is treat preupgrade bugs at Go/No-Go meetings as release
blockers, but at the same time not require install media respin for
preupgrade fixes. This should allow more flexibility and faster turnover
for validation. As long as there is a process to accept Anaconda builds
to stable during the freeze without doing composes, I believe this
should work.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Weird F17 effect: New gdm-3.4.0.1 presents mysql server account on the login screen

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/31/2012 12:04 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Ray Strode  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> on gdm? why not filtering out by defaul the famous non-human users,
>>> like
>>> mysql and postgresql?
>> We could do that, but it's not a very scalable or upstream friendly answer 
>> (since different upstreams might have different account names for these 
>> users).
> 
> The current situation isn't a user friendly answer though. So we
> should do something about it. If the short term fix is a hardcoded
> list so be it.

Another short-term hack might be filtering out all users with
UID < 500.

This would make it possible to display human users that have UID
between 500 and 1000 and at the same time, filter out statically
assigned non-human users, e.g. mysql with UID 27.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Dependency problems

[Kalev Lember]

On 10/24/2011 01:49 AM, Richard Marko wrote:
> ** Found 2 pre-existing rpmdb problem(s), 'yum check' output follows:
> gnome-python2-gtkhtml2-2.25.3-34.fc15.x86_64 has missing requires of
> gnome-python2-extras = ('0', '2.25.3', '34.fc15')

This one should be fixed with the gnome-python2-extras build in
updates-testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-python2-extras-2.25.3-36.fc16

Would be great if you could give it a try and leave feedback in Bodhi.

Thanks!

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Test-Announce] Note for people with EFI installs: install grub-efi!

[Kalev Lember]

On 10/12/2011 06:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 12:29 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> I can think of two ways to convince yum to always install grub-efi on
>> upgrades:
>>  a) have grub2 require grub-efi; or
>>  b) have grub-efi obsolete grub.

Both of the cases are also described on yum wiki page:
 a) 
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumPackageUpdates#PackagesplitintwoApplicationandnewlibraries
 b) http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumPackageUpdates#Generalcase


>> I would personally prefer (a), but (b) should also work. grub2 is
>> already obsoleting grub, and if grub-efi was made to _also_ obsolete
>> grub, then yum should install _both_ grub2 and grub-efi on upgrades.
> 
> Yes - it's not that we necessarily intended to leave it that way, but I
> wanted to give people a heads-up as the problem exists _now_.
> 
> I think b) sounds closer to our goal here, if it does actually work that
> way (I thought yum would just pick one of the obsoleting packages).

As much as I know, yes: it installs all the packages that obsolete the
old one. For the general case where you have pkgX-1.0-1 installed and
want to get replacementY and replacementZ installed, this should work:

# replacementY
Obsoletes: pkgX < 1.0.0-2

# replacementZ
Obsoletes: pkgX < 1.0.0-2


-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Test-Announce] Note for people with EFI installs: install grub-efi!

[Kalev Lember]

On 10/12/2011 04:17 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks. There's a grub update in updates-testing atm (being pushed
> stable soon) which splits the EFI stuff off into a new grub-efi
> subpackage. If you have an EFI install of F16 you will need to have
> grub-efi installed or else your system won't boot any more. So, if you
> have an EFI install, install the grub-efi package!

Turning Beta installs into unbootable bricks doesn't sound very good. If
installing grub-efi on upgrades is enough to make it work, this should
be easy to solve.

I can think of two ways to convince yum to always install grub-efi on
upgrades:
 a) have grub2 require grub-efi; or
 b) have grub-efi obsolete grub.

I would personally prefer (a), but (b) should also work. grub2 is
already obsoleting grub, and if grub-efi was made to _also_ obsolete
grub, then yum should install _both_ grub2 and grub-efi on upgrades.

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Cannot lock screen with gnome-screensaver-3.1.91-1.fc16 from bodhi

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/08/2011 01:12 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Not yet because fetching many packages from koji before they are listed
> as pushed in the corresponding bodhi tickets is beyond my time.

By the way, there's a very simple yet not widely known bodhi feature for
downloading the whole update set. I only learned of it a few days ago too.

bodhi -D [update-ID], where update ID can be either the
FEDORA-2011-X number or any of the builds from the update group, if
the ID hasn't been assigned yet. Either one works for downloading the
whole set of packages.

Example:
$ mkdir /tmp/pkgs
$ cd /tmp/pkgs
$ bodhi -D gnome-shell-3.1.91-2.fc16  <-- downloads the full
  GNOME 3.1.91 update
or
$ bodhi -D FEDORA-2011-11915   <-- downloads the full
   GNOME 3.1.90 update
$ sudo yum localupdate *


Hope this helps,
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Test-Announce] 2011-09-05 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting (?)

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/05/2011 05:53 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> No responses, so let's do an email check-in today.

I have hopefully fixed the bug that rendered freshly installed Alpha
systems unbootable after upgrading grub2.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/grub2-1.99-5.fc16


-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Firefox crash

[Kalev Lember]

On 08/28/2011 11:30 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> $ rpm -q firefox xulrunner
> firefox-6.0-1.fc16.x86_64
> xulrunner-6.0-1.fc16.x86_64
> 
> crashes for me (and opens its own crash handler dialog) when trying
> to browse pages at  http://bikemap.net
> 
> This is _without_ Adobe's Flash plugin in case that matters.
> 
> Can anyone confirm?
> If so, the current test update is bad.
> 

Just a wild guess -- what version of glibc do you have? For a short
while updates-testing had glibc-2.14.90-6 that made lots of apps crash.
yum downgrade 'glibc*' should fix it if that's the case.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.14.90-6
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs

[Kalev Lember]

On 08/25/2011 08:12 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I've worked my way through this kind of mess a couple of times now, most
> recently yesterday.  Here's my experience:
> 
>  - Do a big rawhide update - in this case, at least two weeks worth.

A bit off topic, but I would personally encourage everybody to play with
the F16 tree instead of rawhide at this point.

When in the past rawhide was always what you'd get as the next upcoming
Fedora release, this is now slightly different. In the past, updates to
rawhide would slow down significantly when nearing a new release and the
repo would be frozen for weeks at a time. Now, however, rawhide is a
continuously flowing repo and releases are instead made of release branches.

Fedora 16 (also called 'Branched') was branched off of rawhide a month
ago. Since that time, most of the developers have switched from working
on rawhide to working on the F16 branch. What this means is that:

- rawhide gets much less love than usual during the F16 pre-Alpha -
  Final stages. Quite a lot of people want to get the new release
  polished up as good as possible and just don't pay much attention
  to rawhide bugs.

- The Branched tree might actually get new goodies earlier than
  rawhide, because this is what people are mostly concentrating on.

- Bug reports and general testing of the new Branched release is very
  valuable, and much more important than rawhide at this point.

What I personally do is that I switch to Branched when it gets branched
off of rawhide and stay on there until the release is out. After that,
back to the rawhide train. Everybody wins -- I get better experience,
newer goodies and a warm fuzzy feeling that I'm helping out with the new
release; the distro gets my help of making the release better.


-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: SOLVED Re: Mock for more than one config\arch?

[Kalev Lember]

On 07/12/2010 12:50 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/07/10 10:01, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> for ARCH in fedora-12-i386 fedora-12-x86_64 fedora-rawhide-i386 ; do
>>mock -r $ARCH mypackage.src.rpm
>> done
>>
> 
> Is it basically bash script?
> I'm not excellent currently with a cli.

Yes, it is. If it's more convenient for you, you can also put it all in one 
line:
for ARCH in fedora-12-i386 fedora-12-x86_64 fedora-rawhide-i386 ; do mock -r 
$ARCH mypackage.src.rpm ; done

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Mock for more than one config\arch?

[Kalev Lember]

On 07/12/2010 11:39 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I'm doing something wrong but what is the correct sequence to build for
> more that one arch, mock --help\man not throwing much light for me.
>
> mock -r fedora12.i386 fedora12.x86_64 fedora 13.xx fedoraDevel.xx
> --rebuild --resultdir=/some/local/path somesrc.rpm
>
>

for ARCH in fedora-12-i386 fedora-12-x86_64 fedora-rawhide-i386 ; do
 mock -r $ARCH mypackage.src.rpm
done

-- 
Kalev
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test